I'm a privacy pragmatist, writing about the intersection of law, technology, social media and our personal information. If you have story ideas or tips, e-mail me at khill@forbes.com. PGP key here.
These days, I'm a senior online editor at Forbes. I was previously an editor at Above the Law, a legal blog, relying on the legal knowledge gained from two years working for corporate law firm Covington & Burling -- a Cliff's Notes version of law school.
In the past, I've been found slaving away as an intern in midtown Manhattan at The Week Magazine, in Hong Kong at the International Herald Tribune, and in D.C. at the Washington Examiner. I also spent a few years traveling the world managing educational programs for international journalists for the National Press Foundation.
I have few illusions about privacy -- feel free to follow me on Twitter: kashhill, subscribe to me on Facebook, Circle me on Google+, or use Google Maps to figure out where the Forbes San Francisco bureau is, and come a-knockin'.

British Celebs' Supposed Secrets Posted To Twitter

British socialite Jemima Khan says she's not part of a super injunction, calling the allegation "a bloody nightmare"

An anonymous Twitter user has England questioning the usefulness of gag orders for the press in the social media age. A tweep going by the name @InjunctionSuper posted a series of micro-messages this weekend about scandals involving British celebs such as chef star Gordon Ramsay that have allegedly been hushed up in the UK press thanks to “super injunctions.”

If you don’t live in the UK, that may not mean much to you. A super-injunction is a nifty little court order that public figures can get to prohibit the British press from reporting something embarrassing about them that’s not deemed to be essential information for public consumption. The first rule about super injunctions is that you can’t talk about super injunctions. (There are also normal injunctions that allow a public figure to be kept anonymous, but do not suppress reporting on the events entirely.)

Since the press can’t report on whether a super injunction actually exists, the coverage of the scandal and the need to tiptoe around the allegations and who stands accused makes for some rather awkwardly-written articles in the UK press.

The UK press aren’t including the names of the six celebs who allegedly have super-injunctions nor why they allegedly have them (mainly the usual tabloid fodder of affairs, prostitutes and sex toys). Nor are they naming or linking to the Twitter account, likely for fear of being found in contempt of court if the celebs do have super injunctions. Which is probably proof that they do have super-injunctions, a point socialite Jemima Khan made via Twitter after saying that she is not part of English broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson’s injunction: “The proof that I haven’t got a super injunction is that the papers have printed my name (and no one else’s- for fear of being sued).”

(Claire O’Connor of Filthy Rich pointed out to me by email that there’s a certain irony to Khan’s getting caught up in this Twitter leak. She’s on the record as a supporter of rapid transparency. The heiress offered to help bail out Julian Assange during his extradition hearing in London. She also encouraged ex-boyfriend Hugh Grant to turn the tables on a former tabloid reporter and bug their off-the-record conversation for the New Statesman.)

These days, the press are not the sole gatekeepers for information reaching a wider audience, meaning super injunctions are only guaranteed to work if journalists have exclusive access to scandalous info. In this particular case, there’s no putting this scandalous toothpaste back in the tube. Over 50,000 people are following @InjunctionSuper on Twitter and other Twitter users have retweeted the allegations hundreds of times. This has led Emma Barnett to suggest in the Telegraph that super injunctions no longer work in the digital age.

It’s true that it’s hard to keep secrets these days. It’s also true that whoever is behind @InjunctionSuper could still be brought to court by one of those with a super injunction and have to pay some nasty fines. Just because he or she has an anonymous account doesn’t mean that the tweep can’t be tracked down by subpoenaing Twitter to get his or her IP address.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Thanks for this report, Kashmir- I had never heard of super-injunctions before, and they reek of government censorship of free speech.

There is also the considerable possibility of a backfire here, that may tear down this injunction wall. Let’s assume this @injunctionsuper Twit knows their stuff about internet anonymity and is able to remain aloof. What is to prevent them from complete fabrications? Usually such things would be ignored by the general public b/c they aren’t in the mainstream gossip rags, and thus aren’t credible; but because of these censoring gag orders, the Twit has assumed the mantle of credibility.

There is a certain ironic justice in this- the effort to supress the rumor mill may be the very thing that makes the mill spin faster, to the point that the supression itself hurts the supressor.

In reply to djavnderhoeven The term `super-injunction` is not used by the legal profession in the UK but a term made up by the press/media in my country. I would like to point out that it has nothing to do with government censorship of free speech. The UK government is uncomfortable with these so-called super-injunctions but they are part of a particular European Law that covers all members of the European Union. These injunctions do not prevent Members of Parliament or Members of the House of Lords from speaking about the details on the floor of the House of Commons & the House of Lords. An MP made a speech in The House naming Sir Fred Goodwin (ex-RBS CEO) as a claimant in one of these injunctions & following on from this a Member of the House of Lords said in a speech in The House that Sir Fred Goodwin`s injunction was to a cover up an affair with a senior employee of RBS. He did not give the name of the woman but I found out by using the internet, she is an American. These speeches when made in The House come under Parliamentary Privelige. Sir Fred was named in parliament due to his role in RBS having to be bailed out by the taxpayer & his having left RBS with an overgenerous payoff involving a large pension & other perks despite the mess left by him at RBS.

I know only of two others who have the injunctions one of whom was mention in the article – footballer Ryan Giggs who is alleging that Imogen Thomas was in effect blackmailing him by allegedly threatening to sell her story to the media. Ms Thomas has denied this vehemently but does not have the funds needed to take out an injunction or employ legal counsel. The other person is a journalist(!) who works for the BBC but in his case he asked for the injunction to be lifted as he said he felt uncomfortable as a member of the press at having taken out an injunction to cover up an affair. This affair was known about by fellow journalists but he protected the name of the woman. I feel that he came clean because fellow journalists knew about his affair, that is where his discomfort came from. I agree with you that about ironic justice as the rumour mills are spinning faster & faster.

I just thought I`d make things clearer. I`m not interested in the sordid details of these affairs but if people have a high profile & profess to be doing good works that they might consider leading a more blameless life. They say they take out these injunctions to protect their wives & children but surely if they really wanted to protect them they have the affairs in the first place. Anyone who doesn`t have their inflated salaries cannot afford to take out injunctions.As far as I know it is men who have taken out these injunctions to hide affairs so setting back feminism. This harks back to the Victorian ers when the rich mill owners took advantage of attractive employees & sacked them if they dared to complain. Freedom of speech rules!

Astute analysis, arumlily. Giving people the ability to hide things that actually happened seems extremely problematic to me, and as many have pointed out, futile in an age of social networks and global media.

As to djvanderhoeven’s point, I think that’s a possibility. But if false facts were alleged and claimed to be protected by a superinjunction, they would likely soon be undermined as people would quickly jump forth to deny them (if they indeed didn’t have a superinjunction). But it could be a story for a day or two, just like any other false gossip, which usually doesn’t spread because of fear of defamation lawsuits.